I need to choose a camera!

[eze002]

Digital SLR vs. Medium format film??? I know what your thinking, not this debate again. However, Please read. This is the deal. I am a fine art painter who is trying to decide on a camera. I never paint from photographs ordinarily, but have been recognizing the benefit's of using photo's as a resource. Basically i need a camera to reproduce nature as close to the way the human eye see's as possible. In the end i don't want anyone to be able to tell that I used photos. Therefore I need something that can give me a very natural looking focus/ no perspective distortion/pixalization (that i get with my digital point & shoot). i will be doing color studies (in paint) on sight so am not concerned with color accuracy so much as tonal accuracy and gradation (depiction of form). I am relying on these photos as drawing resources primarily. I also would like to blow these photo's up to ideally around 12x16,16x20 in order to work from. I am fairly camera savvy, and know that some of these issues are related to lenses, like perspective distortion etc.. I am looking in the used $1000 range. Mamyia 645 afd or maybe a Nikon D300. The easy process of a digital would be better but can digital cameras (in this price range) capture the range of tonal variations with the quality of medium format film yet? Thanks,

[another view]

can digital cameras (in this price range) capture the range of tonal variations with the quality of medium format film yet?

In my opinion, yes. Both film and digital will take some work to get exact results like that. If you plan on digital prints from film, there are more steps involved but I really doubt you'd see any quality difference comparing something like a D300 to MF film scanned on a good quality scanner. Get a good DSLR, and be sure to use a calibrated monitor as well as a RAW workflow for best results.

[Frog]

I think film still has more dynamic range than digital but will also admit I don't know a lot about the difference...just something I read and have noticed since going digital.
If you can find a D300 for a thousand dollars and its not from one of the poor dealers listed in our camera dealer feedback forum...let me know as I'll be in line.

[another view]

Frog, I think you're right about film having a little more dynamic range (especially neg film) but as far as the print being the final product, I think digital will be closer overall - if post production is handled carefully. D300's are too new to be around for $1000 from a legitimate dealer (or even used at that price) so I assumed the budget was a little flexible. Also, software and monitor calibration will add quite a bit to the price. If you're using film and need a scanner there's that cost too - but I'd guess that a lot of used medium format cameras with one lens and a scanner will be roughly the price of a D300 and lens.

[Paul Beaulieu]

If you are painting for a picture why do you care if someone knows in came from a picture? I am try to figure out exactly what you are doing. I am a graphic designer and I need more input to help. So are you taking a picture, say of a landscape and then reproducing it in the form of a painting? If the painting is the end result, does a person need to know it was taken from a photo as opposed to just painting the landscape.
The question of digital vs. film comes down to the intended use. For example commercial clients need print that can only be captured from medium of large format cameras. If you are not selling photographic work for large scale reproduction (think of a billboard) then you do not need larger format camera and hence you do not need film.
Most entry level DSLR cameras from Nikon and Canon will give you the size you need (16X20). The D40, D50, maxes out at the print size, the D80 will give you a bit larger print. The new D300 which I have will give you larger prints, but I don't think you need it (not at $1799.00). The biggest thing to remember in price is not the camera but the lens. The Nikon s mentioned above will come with a sub par lens. You will need to upgrade to a better lens. The question with a good telephoto then becomes, do I need to take photos in low light? If yes then you will spend a couple of grand on a Nikkor with a large aperture of say F2.8, if the answer in no to low light, you can buy a good telephoto say, 200-500mm lens with a f5.6 for half the price. I hope this helps.

[Photo-John]

Seems to me you might be overthinking this a bit. I think any digital SLR will do the job for you. And you're right, lenses will be important. You need a good lens with minimal distortion, sharp focus, and good color rendition. I would not go with film. I've used both film and digital extensively, and worked in pro photo labs. And I think digital is simpler - especially if color accuracy is one of your top priorities.

Any chance you could show us a sample of what you want to do? Honestly, it doesn't sound that complicated to me. Plus, human vision is not at all a simple thing and we all see things differently. Electronic and chemical engineers actually decide what the color in both film and digital images look like. So real "accuracy" is sort of a myth. So you might want to let go of - or loosen up - the idea of accuracy a bit. Just get a good digital SLR and get to work. I don't think you need a pro body for what you want to do, either. If you like Nikon, get a D40x or D60 and use the money you save for a really good lens.

[Greg McCary]

I agree with the others on the DSLR. MF is a great format but it is getting harder by the day to get it processed. B&W can be done in house but color expecally E6 is getting harder to get done. I think if you shot film E6 would be the choice. If you are into B&W I think MF would work. But from what you are writing I think you want color. Go DSLR. Maybe a nice MF camera to mix things up a bit. You can get nice deals on used MF cameras without breaking the bank. You can have your cake and eat it too.

[eze002]

Thanks everyone for your input. i probably am over thinking the issue. Though not being rich and investing in a substantial piece of equipment, I want to be sure I'm looking in the right direction. It doesn't really matter if people know that i used photos for my work, i just don't want my final paintings to have any of the distortion that cameras can cause. I suppose working that out will be more up to me interpreting the photos than the photo's themselves. As for the Nikon D300, i don't think I could find it for that cheap. I was being optimistic. It is most likely more camera than I need too. I feel satisfied looking in a mid lever dslr now and giving up the medium format idea. thanks.

[Greg McCary]

I only have issues with distortion is at wide angles. I only have one lens that creates distortion and it is a 15mm film lens. With most lenses you will not have a problem. If you are reffering to the Keystone effect. Ect, buildings and doors getting narrow as you shoot up at a subject, this is with all lenses. It can be easily corrected in post processing most of the time. Proper technique in the field helps too.

[freygr]

Any camera will give distortion, depending on you choice of lens. Digital is like shooting slide film. If you after large dynamic range film is still king as in color negative film, and the larger the negative the more detail and cost. From the size your wishing to enlarge medium of large format is called for. Digital print at 12 by 16 at 300 DPI photo will require 17 mega pixel camera and a medium size color printer if you going to keep it in house. The 16 by 20 at 300 DPI is a 28 mega pixel image.

For the size of printed image, and the dynamic range you are asking for you can get a Speed or Crown Graphic in 4 x 5 and unless your going be taking a lot of photos your be ahead of the game.